Manchester City to demand £7m from Chelsea for Daniel Sturridge at tribuna

[Bender]

LINK

Manchester City are ready to demand a £7 million transfer fee for the Chelsea forward Daniel Sturridge when the two clubs attempt to resolve a valuation of the player at a tribunal on Jan 14.

Sturridge, 20, left Eastlands for Stamford Bridge last summer after rejecting a new contract at City that would have replaced his existing deal at the club which expired last June.
Former City manager Mark Hughes had been keen to retain the Birmingham-born youngster, who was voted the club’s Young Player of the Year at the end of the 2008-09 season, and his departure for Chelsea was regarded as a significant loss by the Manchester club.

With Sturridge being schooled by City since his arrival as a 14-year-old, the club are entitled to development fee for the youngster, despite his decision to run down his contract.
City had initially planned to target a £10 million figure, but the club have now set what they consider a more realistic figure of £7 million for the England U21 forward.
Chelsea, who gave Sturridge a four-year contract last summer, are expected to offer less than half the figure being sought by City, however, and the London club will point to his restricted involvement at Eastlands last season, when he made just 26 senior appearances for Hughes’s team, as justification for their own lesser valuation.

[dww]

Given the piss poor fees that clubs lower down the ladder get when their players go to the tribunal you would expect them to be luck to get £500k. Being as they will have high powered lawyers on the case I would expect them to get a few million but £7m seems a lot.

[dom9]

I'd think a player that has made 26 premier league appearances is usually worth a few million, particularly at that age.

I take Dave's point though.

[red g]

sunderland paid 3,5million rising to 6million for Frazier campbell so dont think it is an absurdely high price and in a stupidly inflated market being english adds a few quid on to

[dww]

It's not the value for the player I have any issue with but the fact that tribunals usually give lower league clubs merely compensation for training the player - rather than an equivalent amount they would have got in the market. In those situations the value has a significant impact on clubs overall finances - here it has no influence on such things but because of the nature of the FA and the clubs involved I would suspect the figures to be higher which personally I think is a disgrace.

[Exiled_red]

sunderland paid 3,5million rising to 6million for Frazier campbell so dont think it is an absurdely high price and in a stupidly inflated market being english adds a few quid on to

Wasn't that a transfer agreed between the clubs rather than a fee set by tribunal?

I'd imagine a fee of £2m max given the previous fees they've decided

[red g]

Wasn't that a transfer agreed between the clubs rather than a fee set by tribunal?

I'd imagine a fee of £2m max given the previous fees they've decided

you may be right